Guess the Y-haplogroup(s) of Mesolithic Iberians (Braña 1 & 2)

[adamo]

I don't get why T,Q,G or any downstream subclades of I2a received any votes but anyways; Q is so rare in Europe and the others excluding the I2a subclades are clearly middle eastern Neolithic introductions.

 

[Maciamo]

In my opinion, Mesolithic Iberian carried E-M81, I (perhaps I* but more likely I2), but also R1a1-SRY1532 or possibly R1a1a-M17.

Overall, I think that Mesolithic Europeans belonged mainly to haplogroup I and R1a(xM417), while E-M81 was restricted to Iberia and perhaps southern France. E-V13 might have spread around the southern Balkans and southern Italy during the Mesolithic period too.

As for I2-M26, I still have doubts about its place of origin within Europe and about when it spread around Western Europe. It could have first appeared in Iberia or France or Italy during the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic. If it only dates from the Neolithic it would have been diffused by the Cardium Pottery, Megalithic and Bell Beaker cultures. But from which country ?

I would expect very sporadic cases of haplogroups C-V20 and F-P96 and even A1a in various parts of Europe since these haplogroups almost certainly arrived during the Palaeolithic but are extremely rare today (altogether < 0.1% of the population).

N1c would also surely have been present in northern Russia and Finland during the Mesolithic. Perhaps also in Scandinavia depending on what time frame we understand as Mesolithic, since there was hardly any Neolithic in Lapland.


EDIT: I didn't notice that the poll was only about the Brana 1 and 2 samples. In that case I retract hg E1b1b and vote for R1a (xM417). I2 is also possible, but R1a appears more likely if these two samples resembled more modern Northeast Europeans and had blue eyes. The strongest argument in favour of I2 is that their mtDNA was U5b2c1. Nowadays all subclades of U5b2c are typically found in Western Europe.

 

[adamo]

I wonder how much E-M81 is due to moorish presence in Iberia and how much is significantly older, I'm not sure wether or not it would be Mesolithic, don't know. I don't think N1c was present in Europe during the Mesolithic and I sure have my doubts on R1a, I would need more convincing to believe that.

 

[Sile]

I don't get why T,Q,G or any downstream subclades of I2a received any votes but anyways; Q is so rare in Europe and the others excluding the I2a subclades are clearly middle eastern Neolithic introductions.

because the initial paper was this

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html

and since they mouth U5 mtdna in the same area and U5 is the hunter/getherer from the baltic area, some assume this ydna find could have come with this U5 female

 

[adamo]

Which y-DNA came with u5?

 

[ElHorsto]

My bets sorted by likelyhood:

1. I
2. Q

3. E1b or other E
4. R1a
5. G2a


6. anything else (N1c,F,A,R1,C,...)


Group (I,Q,R1a) I expect due to the dominant Globe13 north european autosomals.
Group (E, G2a) and again (I) I expect also to some degree (like 20% chance) due to the south european autosomal admixture from K12b and Globe 13.
Group (6) is also very likely because I think many if not most old lineages are extinct and there is also slight exotic autosomal shown in Globe 13.

After all I voted for all I, Q, R1a and E1b.

 

[Wilhelm]

I would expect haplogroup N, due to Saami/North-East euro affinity, but since he also had decent amount of Atlanto-Med, he could have also R1, G, I,.

 

[Nobody1]

From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

 

[Goga]

My first choices are G2a or F. My second choice is I2*. My third choice is R1a*…

 

[MOESAN]

From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

I am not a wizard: these La Brana people seem to me very close to modern British People (the oldest parts?) surely something akin to a "basque-atlantic" componant (what Y-DNA? Y-I2*?) and also a bit of old 'mediterranean' (first wave of pre-neolithic Y-G?) - I keep in mind Y-haplogroups are not tightly linked to an autosomal pannel so... - for Y-I1 I have a doubt when I see to its modern distribution but Lapps-Saami are rich of it and France could be the way until there so?... in South of Iberia Y-E1b (>> M81) could have been there for a long time, maybe before Neolithic, maybe with the recorded north-african neolithic?
Y-T could have been around for a long time too, when we look at the distribution in whole Europe and in Scandinavia, come with Y- G and others...
just bets - I recall the place of greater variance is not always the place of "birth" (history is running on) and the place of older SNPs is not more the place of "birth", the oldest place... a restriction in absolute number can lead to a "frozing" of mutations? statistical accidents, bottlenecks can mistake us, at least partly -for Y-R1a I should be surprised to see it in mesolithic Iberial and have no answer - Y-R1b seems arrived through North as well as trough South, but from East al the way... I prefer to be prudent.

 

[MOESAN]

concerning mammuth mythology, I don't think the distances never play a role in selection ; they did - I don't believe in a undisrupt genetical "Province" at ice ages encompassing Iberia and Behring stright even if I think men were walking large distances - we know that at Cro-Magnon ages, mammuth elements (ivory and so on) were travelling from France Dordogne to Switzerland: it doesn't prove men did regularly the complete way from one point to the other...

 

[ElHorsto]

From the first study:

Sanchez-Quinto et al 2012-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212006501

A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3).

Since Brana1 (left) and Brana2 (right) are not close (completely diff.) to modern-day Iberians; i do not expect them to have a Y-DNA Hg thats common amongst modern day Iberians; They dont seem to be too close to the Finns either so my Guess is I2-P37.2;
But im hoping for a major surprise;

I think Brana would be closer to Scandinavians than Britons if the authors would've included them.
But whatever similarity to contemporary populations La Brana has, I think it is more due to similar admixture composition rather than direct ancestry.

 

[Aberdeen]

When it came time to vote, I went with I2 P37.2+only but I have a nagging feeling that I should have gone with T. Nothing left to do but wait for the results.

 

[sparkey]

I'm surprised by how many people are picking "I* or IJ." Does anyone want to justify that pick? I* hasn't been found in modern samples, and IJ has only been found in Iran. Are people supposing that most late Mesolithic DNA was extinct, outlier type subclades?

 

[Knovas]

I'd say I2, G2a or E-M81.

 

[elghund]

Why do they wait so long to publish? Which journal or which website will publish this article when it is released?

 

[Jackson]

Why do they wait so long to publish? Which journal or which website will publish this article when it is released?

To create suspense.

 

[Maciamo]

I'm surprised by how many people are picking "I* or IJ." Does anyone want to justify that pick? I* hasn't been found in modern samples, and IJ has only been found in Iran. Are people supposing that most late Mesolithic DNA was extinct, outlier type subclades?

I voted too quickly, thinking it concerned all Mesolithic Iberians since 10,000 BCE, in which case there might still have been occasional I* lineages, or side branches of I1 and I2 that don't exist anymore.

I am more surprised by the number of people who chose hg G, Q and T. Or even N and L !

 

[Tabaccus Maximus]

I chose haplogroup T, and to highroll, haplogroup L.

My wager
99.9% haplogroup T
00.1% haplogroup L (highball)

I chose haplgroup T for several reasons...
Dienekes K12 run showed a 10% affinity to East Africans. Another run strangely to the San. Another to East Asians. Bizarre results?
East Africa has a strange founder effect for T* which extends through Tanzania and the countryside. Another group of people that has T* in low frequencies is the Australian aborigines, and it is also probably found at low frequencies among australoid peoples, which may explain part of the Asian shift.

Here's the bottom line: Europe was not invaded and settled by Amazonian women. We should not see very much continuity in male haplogroups through the ages when we see obvious discontinuity between female haplotypes as we do.

Racially, the La Brana individuals' facial features, while Caucasian, do not look Northern European. So the proximity, while more similar to Northern Europeans that Southern Europeans, doesn't mean they were or looked like Northern Europeans. If they belonged to haplogroup T, then they will appear more Northern European than Neolithic (G2a and E1b) individuals with non-k, non-MNOPS haplogroups. In theory, with the U5 lineage and a LT lineage, should appear more North European, East African and South East Asian.
I think the cheek bones, brow, forehead and the teeth speak to this.

 

[Tabaccus Maximus]

Footnotes:

It would be tempting to associate T* with a Near Eastern spread of agriculture. As Maciamo has pointed out, it could well be that all K* descended peoples had some understanding of plant cultivation and gardening. However, while T* peoples spread to places that ultimately had plant cultivation, such as East and South Central Africa and Australia, these people, while having domestic plants, did not have Near Eastern domestic plants, at least Neolithic Near Eastern plants. I believe this is true for India as well.

Haplogroup T also appears to have spread earlier than the usual Near Eastern Neolithic lineages. A paper on Dienekes several years ago discusses this.

Overall, T is found at low and consistent quantities throughout Europe, especially the Urals.